"You voted for Bush? Twice? Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Moron."
<goofindoo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote in message
news:4e3863e9-c0e1-4bcd-be0c-f3d2ae72eb85@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mar 6, 11:27 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Mar 6, 7:35 pm, "Are earwigs gnawing at McCain's brain?"
>>
>> <goofin...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > Ha ha ha. Philosopher king. Leo Strauss is dead and so is
>> > nonsensical view of politics.
>>
>> > By the way, your logic is flawed. No where in your analogy do you
>> > show how the capable man can be equated to the philosopher.
>>
>> > Once again, Leo Strauss and his bizarre and insane view of politics
is
>> > dead. Go back to the library and read your dusty tomes and leave the
>> > real world alone.
>>
>> "Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and
>> is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the
>> acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that
>> when society is itself the tyrant -- society collectively over the
>> separate individuals who compose it -- its means of tyrannizing are not
>> restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political
>> functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if
>> it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in
>> things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social
>> tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression,
>> since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves
>> fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details
>> of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against
>> the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection
>> also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling,
>> against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil
>> penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those
>> who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible,
>> prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its
>> ways, and compel all characters to fa****on themselves upon the model
>> of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of
>> collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that
>> limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a
>> good condition of human affairs as protection against political
>> despotism. -- On Liberty, The Library of Liberal Arts edition, p.7."
>>
>> http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm
>
> This is where Leo Strauss and Plato got it wrong: the belief that
> philosophers were superior to the "vulgar" m*****. The philosopher is
> not immune to being a tyrant. In fact, judging by the arrogance of
> the philosophers who believe themselves superiors, I would think that
> a philosopher would be more likely to be a tyrant than anyone else.
>
> Also there is another obstacle to the ascension of the philosopher
> king. The m***** must give their consent. I know that Leo Strauss
> believed that the m***** are stupid--unable to stare into the abyss--
> and base, and through these qualities the philosopher can control the
> m*****. Problem is, the m***** aren't all stupid nor base. Nor do
> they fall into the roll of the gentleman. See there is a group
> outside Strauss' simplistic groups. A group of wise people who can't
> be manipulated and who do not want the philosophers to rule the
> people. This group is the one kicking Strauss' dead butt all over the
> place. It's this group that will finish bringing down the nonsense of
> Plato and Strauss and all the other philosophers who think so little
> of the m***** that they think it's justifiable to lie and manipulate
> the m*****.
Yeah ... but does that include Bush and the neocons who also think it's
justifiable to lie and manipulate the m***** but who were VOTED in by the
"m*****" twice !!!!
|
